Tag: 2016

How long has [the VA] been a problem? Decades. How long have politicians been talking about it? Decades.” Fiorina said she would gather 10 or 12 veterans in a room, including the gentleman from the third row, and ask what they want. Fiorina would then vet this plan via telephone poll, asking Americans to “press one for yes on your smartphone, two for no. You know how to solve these problems, so I’m going to ask you.

Carly Fiorina, wowing us with The Leadership. Rising star, everyone. Deepest GOP bench in a generation or more. To lower taxes, press one!

…modern Republican politicians can’t be serious — not if they want to win primaries and have any future within the party. Crank economics, crank science, crank foreign policy are all necessary parts of a candidate’s resume.

Until now, however, leading Republicans have generally tried to preserve a facade of respectability, helping the news media to maintain the pretense that it was dealing with a normal political party. What distinguishes Mr. Trump is not so much his positions as it is his lack of interest in maintaining appearances. And it turns out that the party’s base, which demands extremist positions, also prefers those positions delivered straight. Why is anyone surprised?

Paul Krugman, laying bare the sad realities of the modern GOP. That last night’s debate is greeted as anything but a sad portent for the forseable future of representative democracy in America is indicative of the depth of our problem.

[T]he Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who will be chairing the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee. Thankfully we can all rest assured that the Adults are in charge of the GOP. There might be one or two show votes, but then they’re going to buckle down and get to the hard work of governing by consensus. Certainly that’s what the Commentariat is telling me. So it must be true. Cannot wait for my pony.

Remember how Howard Dean put together a 50-state strategy and everybody laughed at him, and then when the wave election hit in 2006, all the credit went to Rahm Emanuel because so many of our elite pundits admire unapologetic dickheads most of all?
Anyway, I was thinking of that last night when I realized that Eric Cantor had lost his primary to a religio-Randian economics prof and the Democratic alternative was a place-holder named Jack Trammell, who […] this morning finds himself in a more winnable race than existed at six o’clock last night. Why, I thought, hasn’t Trammell, or someone like him – or a couple of someones like him – been out there for six months beating more hell out of Cantor than Dave Brat was? Why did his website look like it was designed by Jukt Micronics?
The Republicans never shied away from going after Tom Daschle, or Tom Foley before him. Why were national Democrats caught flat-footed by last night’s results? It’s their job not to be surprised by this kind of thing. The primary benefit of Dean’s approach was that it presumed that progressive ideas could sell anywhere, and that it was part of the mandate of a national party not to concede any race anywhere.

Charlie Pierce is exactly right. You run in 50 states. All the time. Every race. Worst case scenario, somebody is out there talking about your issues, day in and day out. Best case scenario, an unexpectedly competitive race falls in your lap. Nothing summarizes the consummate failure of The Democrat to affect policy even (or especially) when they hold the White House more than the simple inability to tell the general public clearly and succinctly what they stand for as a party, how that differs from what the GOP is offering, and then to clearly and consistently run on that in all races.
Instead, they stay in the defensive crouch, hand the GOP legislative victory after legislative victory, and then when the GOP still demands more, they say “well, okay, but can we at least slow the systematic dismantlement of government down just a bit?” and call it a ringing bipartisan victory.

This has to stop. In fact, it had to stop a couple of decades ago but still hasn’t been addressed save for that one Dean-lead cycle Pierce mentions. It’s a simple fact that you have to be running candidates in every race and are out there every day talking about a few key facets of Your Plan for America. Preferably the ones that are polling about 80% in your favor and that your local Tea Klan candidate is required to be most vociferously against. Like allowing women to drive. That sort of thing. It certainly helps that the major issues of the day are polling in your favor, sometimes dramatically so, but a political operation still needs to let people know about that.

I just want one prominent Democrat to say that our problem isn’t “partisanship,” it’s Republicans. Or it’s conservatism. Blaming “partisanship” reinforces the apparently unkillable conventional-wisdom notion that the two parties are equally responsible for our political system’s failure because neither one will compromise.

Steve M. of No More Mister Nice Blog. Be for things. Be clear about what those things are. Explain why and how the GOP and only the GOP is standing in the way of that goal. Don’t be afraid to say so if a Democrat is in the way too. Repeat for 20 years. Then you can get somewhere.

It’s not so easy to see Perry’s path to the GOP nomination in 2016. He may have to deal with an intrastate rival, Ted Cruz, who excites conservatives at home and everywhere else immensely more than the Perry. Cruz and Chris Christie can outdo Perry at macho bluster; Rand Paul has a far more devoted following; there’s no obvious “Establishment front-runner” to which Perry could pose as an alternative; and virtually everyone on the Mentioned list of 2016 candidates looks a lot smarter than the Texas governor (i.e., there’s no parade of clown-car candidates like Bachmann, Cain and Gingrich to lend Perry some comparative gravitas).

Ed Kilgore on Governor Rick “Good Hair” Perry’s relative chances. Agree completely. Should he run, I think 2016 will make Perry long for his superlative performance of 2012.

Also, points for credibly working “Perry” and “some comparative gravitas” into a single phrase. Kilgore showing us how it’s done, yet again.

What Apple understands and its critics did not (and still do not) is that many people, from all walks of life, simply appreciate nice things. They accuse Apple of pretension and elitism, but it’s they, the critics, who hold that the mass market for phones and tablets is overwhelmingly comprised of tasteless, fickle shoppers who neither discern nor care about product quality. That Apple’s lead in these categories is simply because they were first out of the gate in them, not because their products are so good.

John Gruber writes what must be his most incisive, accurate paragraph in years. And he happens to write a lot of good paragraphs. There’s a lot more than a few thoughts about Apple in here; many, many segments of Our World could take a lot of useful advice by refiguring this conceptual framework into their own purview. Looking at you, Democrats. The great unwashed are a hell of a lot smarter, more engaged, and just plain interested than you ever give them credit for. Start acting like it.

If you try to imagine the Republican consensus after a potential losing election, it will look like this. It will recognize that its harsh partisan rhetoric turned off voters, and will urgently want to woo Latinos, while holding on to as much as possible of the party’s domestic policy agenda. And oh, by the way, the party will be casting about for somebody to lead it.

Jonathan Chait, getting almost everything completely wrong. In the wake of a 2012 Presidential defeat, the GOP will immediately declare that the loss was really due to voter fraud, white voter intimidation, “massive” negative spending by The Democrat and Unions, and a generalized malaise caused by Romney not having been “conservative enough.” The only answer: go more conservative. This is quite consistently how they react to all electoral setbacks; a pattern they’ve been following for these past two decades or more. Narrow electoral victories for the GOP are massive mandates; losses are the result stolen elections or otherwise non-binding outcomes that were exacerbated by a lack of true-believer conservatives in whatever positions were at stake. Why suddenly stop now? What has changed? What possible political or strategic upside do they see in “playing along”? Why would they even know how to legislate from compromise and whatever passes for centrism? Seriously, I’m asking; they who hold these offices and will (largely) hold them post-2012 have likely never worked in this way in their careers. But somewhere around lunchtime on January 20, 2013 they are suddenly getting their opposing number on the horn to talk real business? Seriously, we are meant to believe this, Jonathan (and, for that matter, Obama)?

A loss at the top of the ticket in 2012 will not be a moment for reflection, or a “centrist move” that’s been likened to the fever breaking. It will, instead, be an occasion to take it even further right. Impeachments will become a daily affair. Nothing will move. Default will be used as the default hostage for everything. And etc… Basically just like it is now, but about 100x worse. Based on recent and not-so-recent history, nothing could possibly be more clear to everyone outside the DC commentariat: if Obama wins, we will be counting our lucky stars that gridlock happens to result in long-term positive policy outcomes over the next 9 months or so. Because nothing else will be happening other than weekly or even daily Constitutional Crises.

But, as I said, Chait does get one thing right: they’ll be looking for a leader. And but also it won’t be Jeb Bush. Think more along the lines of Bachmann but even more crazy. That’s who will emerge. Basically whatever lunatic gets the most play out of the most popular impeachment movement. Maybe that’s Santorum, but I suspect he will seem rather retrograde and far too Liberal to play in 2016. We may look back at him wistfully by then as the far-right GOP candidate who was pretty palatable by comparison. Because one of them is going to win sooner or later.

Tanned, Rested, and Ready

Brad DeLong gets emails:

I’m pretty sure if Aquaman dropped into the race right now and just said “Washington outsider” and “regulations are killing us” for two weeks, he would be the frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination through December.

Sure, sure. But he’d just as quickly be inexplicably captured by some two-bit villain with no powers to speak of and ultimately miss the early primaries while awaiting rescue. So save up all your Aquaman dreams for 2016 when things really open up. He and Huntsman will really make a run of it.

Tanned, Rested, and Ready

You don’t want these candidates moving so right in the Republican primary that it becomes impossible for them to win the general election, because it will become a self-defeating message in the primary.

People want to win. They don’t want somebody who goes so far to the extremes of either party that they lack a chance to carry a victory off in November.

Karl Rove, old turd blossom hisself, opining on the GOP Presidential primary field.
Sorry to be the one to tell you this, Karl, but the “sensibility” ship has sailed, been round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames, and subsequently was no-bid auctioned into a second career as a part-time riverboat gambling operation for KBR executives.
John Huntsman even put his hand up on the “10:1 cuts/revenue is a non-starter deal” question and he’s only running for 2016 positioning. There is no one in the field even trying to be the slightly more sensible, slightly more center-far-right candidate of today’s GOP. Mittmentum, the man made to take up that role abandoned it in 2008. His strong showing then has sensibly pushed him even further to the right now. That ought to fix his issues. If the GOP can’t win the general election from a far right stance, they almost can’t win in 2012. And if the economic headwinds were a bit more predictable, we could drop the “almost” qualifier right now.
But the last thing The Democrat would want to do is start making the GOP take stands against job creation. People just don’t want to hear about that stuff right now. Shrill. Better take a “non-confrontational approach,” get into the defensive crouch, and hope for the best. And this is why they fail.